• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Free Will (hint: you don't got it)

Thomas

Stylish Dinosaur
Spamminator Moderator
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
28,098
Reaction score
1,279
Hey Metro, not to veer off into a tangent, but this thread gave me a great comeback for one of my recurring arguments with Mrs. T

Mrs. T: UR so Predictable!
Thomas: I knew you were going to say that.

Thanks man!
 

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
Originally Posted by Thomas
Hmmm, that's a hard thing to ponder, because there are too many variables to consider that affect a later outcome. Under those criteria predictability then becomes a near impossibility for the tools we have available to us: too many external stimuli to track, each with its own timeline for when it comes into play. Interactions between people, memories, childhood trauma, PTSD, too many visits to CE (but no need to be redundant here): those all have an effect on the decisions we make over the course of a day.

I was about to ask about decision fatigue, or the existential "f@&k it" that we all go through at times...and I suppose that could be a function of overload...hmmm, gets more interesting the more I think about it.

But, how do you account for, say, T4?


Goddammit you ass. PM me your phone number and I can explain it to you.
 

origenesprit

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
3,502
Reaction score
400
Originally Posted by MetroStyles
Yeah, the difference would be that in the same instance (literally), you would act the same. Not necessarily in the same general situation. Of course this is nonprovable as we currently have no way of going back in time and testing it over and over at the same instance.

And don't get me started on the whole infinite parallel universes at every moment theory. Sheesh.


Actually I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the infinite parallel universe theory. I assume you think it is a stupid idea because, since you believe in determinism, you couldn't believe that another parallel universe would be at all different, given that the physics of one universe matches another.
 

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
Originally Posted by origenesprit
Actually I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the infinite parallel universe theory. I assume you think it is a stupid idea because, since you believe in determinism, you couldn't believe that another parallel universe would be at all different, given that the physics of one universe matches another.
I'm actually way too stupid to understand the parallel universes theory, but as I understand it, it probably has something to do with the randomness of quantum physics creating a new universe in which every single random possibility is manifested, leading to infinite universes branching out from each existing universe at every instant. I don't know nearly enough about it to say if it is stupid or not. Or if I even described it somewhat correctly above (I made most of that up).
laugh.gif
 

Dakota rube

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
13,306
Reaction score
237
Is this the thread where I get my free will?
I really need to update mine, and, well, money's kind of tight right now.
 

A Y

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
1,037
The depressing thing about determinism is that the whole point of the last 14-odd billion years is this post.

--Andre
 

Sanguis Mortuum

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
5,024
Reaction score
141
The irritating thing that always seems true about philosophy threads on the internet, is that half the posts seem so dumb they're barely worth responding to, and the other half (like those by Manton and Fuuma) go completely over my head
ffffuuuu.gif
 

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
I just talked to Thomas on the phone!!!
bounce2.gif
bounce2.gif
bounce2.gif
 

onlinematt

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
295
Reaction score
1
Ok, the argument comes down to either physics or god. And since I'm not religious, I'll choose to pursue the physics side. So, take two identical atoms that are in exactly the same circumstance in time, space, etc. They have exactly the same forces being exerted on them. Now, we know that the electrons and neutrons and protons in each of these atoms will behave in exactly the same way. So the deal breaker in this theory *may* lie in quarks, which, from my understanding, can appear on one side of an atom and simultaneously appear on the other side - the same quark at the same time in two different places. So, the next logical question is whether or not the behaviour of quarks is predictable and governed by the laws of physics, or whether their movement and behaviour is 'truly' random. If it is truly random, then this could explain general randomness and thus *possibly* free will. Anyone know **** about quarks?
 

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
Originally Posted by onlinematt
Ok, the argument comes down to either physics or god. And since I'm not religious, I'll choose to pursue the physics side. So, take two identical atoms that are in exactly the same circumstance in time, space, etc. They have exactly the same forces being exerted on them. Now, we know that the electrons and neutrons and protons in each of these atoms will behave in exactly the same way. So the deal breaker in this theory *may* lie in quarks, which, from my understanding, can appear on one side of an atom and simultaneously appear on the other side - the same quark at the same time in two different places. So, the next logical question is whether or not the behaviour of quarks is predictable and governed by the laws of physics, or whether their movement and behaviour is 'truly' random. If it is truly random, then this could explain general randomness and thus *possibly* free will. Anyone know **** about quarks?

I followed you up to free will. How does randomness allow for free will?
 

origenesprit

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
3,502
Reaction score
400
Originally Posted by MetroStyles
I followed you up to free will. How does randomness allow for free will?

I don't think it allows for free will but maybe his point is that maybe it doesn't allow for determinism either.
 

onlinematt

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
295
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by MetroStyles
I followed you up to free will. How does randomness allow for free will?

Because we're taking the assumption that everything is governed by the laws of physics = preordained movement of all matter = deterministic = no free will. But if the behaviour of quarks is random, then the movement of matter can't be preordained, therefore breaking down the deterministic theory. I guess this doesn't necessarily correspond directly to free will, but at least it would (if true) break down the deterministic theory...

****. This doesn't really help.
 

onlinematt

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
295
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by origenesprit
I don't think it allows for free will but maybe his point is that maybe it doesn't allow for determinism either.

Exactly. A non-verbose explanation of what I just posted.
 

grundletaint

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
398
Originally Posted by Jerome
Unfortunately one can neither disprove free will nor complete determinism.

i can prove determinism.


1. the beatles
2. jessica biel's ass
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 35.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 60 38.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 27 17.4%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 28 18.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,180
Messages
10,579,212
Members
223,888
Latest member
alitamartin07
Top